Talk:Bertrand Russell

Quotation sections

It is my recommendation that the quotations in the sections "Russell summing up his life", "Comments about Russell", and "Quotations" be either removed and transferred to WikiQuote, or incorporated into the overall narrative about Russell's life and views. Such selective quoting is not only a violation of WP:NPOV, but is also fundamentally unencyclopedic. -Silence 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree- i pretty much unwittingly repeated what you said below. unless i hear some sort of good justification in the near future, i am going to delete them. the quotes already exist on wikiquote. Acornwithwings 20:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Atheist?

Russell summed himself up, as quoted, as an agnostic. He was a fundamentally anti-religious agnostic, except for the period of "A Free Man's Worship"; but Category:Atheist mathematicians, Category:Atheist philosophers ,Category:Atheist thinkers and activists, and Category:British atheists are excessive and misleading. Septentrionalis 17:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

An Agnostic, in the modern sense of the word, is someone who does at least think one of those "gods" might be real and he/she can't know. Russell clearly states that he does not think any of those to be existent as there is no shred of evidence. But he said that he does not think there in some omnipotent/omniscient being. He said that there might be super-human intelligence somewhere but you will find any atheist admitting to that as well, because atheists never claim to possess ultimate knowledge. The question is, if any god existed, would it have mattered for Russell? And I think the answer to that question is no. --SoWhy ^Talk 09:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Russell, as I understand him, is only an agnostic in the classical sense: he has a-gnosis ("lack of knowledge") regarding deities. He has described himself as an agnostic in philosophical theory (because he doesn't "know" that gods don't exist, lacking definitive proof that they can't exist), but an atheist for all practical purposes (because he does not believe in any deities, and, indeed, explicitly rejects claims that deities exist). By those standards, almost all atheists are agnostics too, because they don't claim to "know" with certainty that deities don't exist; they merely find it implausible that they do. For further information, see Russell's Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? -Silence 17:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading about the atheist categories. As it has been noted, Russell (for practical and reference purposes) declared nothing wrong about being called an atheist. In fact, he fits the criteria for "Weak atheism", still nothing misleading. Furthermore, category:Atheist mathematicians states atheists or agnostics are being refered to. Canadianism 05:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I see this has been fixed. Calling an agnostic an atheist is misleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Labelling anyone either is misleading, as both terms are open to instense subjection. See wiki entries for both ## anon

His self-identification is Rationalist, and he found both terms problematic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it me or does this article not anywhere mention Russell's viewpoint on religion? This seems rather strange for an article about the man who authored 'Why I am not a Christian' and who was a champion of both rationalism and agnosticism. I see that previous page versions did include such a section, has it been vandalised out or is it a conscious decision not to discuss it Billsmith453 (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the fact that Russell only called himself an agnostic if he were talking among philosophers, and as many others have stated, anyone else would call him an atheist, and because Richard Dawkins would be an agnostic under that definition, if no one disagrees, I will change Russell's little bio thing to include his "religion" being atheist in about two weeks. ObiBinks (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous. Bertrand Russell was undeniably an atheist. An agnostic atheist perhaps, but an atheist. If you are familiar with this subject you will understand why agnostic atheism is a correct ideological term, and is comparable to weak/negative atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seany101 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I read someone asked him what he would say to God if God reproached him for his non-faith, and he replied "Not enough evidence, Lord, not enough evidence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.243.185 (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments section and Summation of Own Life

I have deleted these sections for the reasons myself and others have listed above: the article is very long, the Comments section is basically a laudatory quotes section and belongs (and already exists) in Wikiquote, and the summation of his life violates NPOV. I did this as these issues were brought up many times and there hasn't been much in the way of contestation. Additionally, the article would be more neutral, concise and informative if there were fewer quotes of Russell in the article, but I don't feel qualified to edit these as i have not read much Russell and don't know much about the context of these quotes. It does Russell no service to have a wikipedia article about him that violates NPOV. Acornwithwings 01:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Topics from 2007

m The Principles of Mathematics

this book is linked to four times along the page, and doesn't have an article. is it needed? and more generally, why not merge "writings online" into "selected bibliography"? trespassers william 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ontological Argument

The article seems to suggest that he fully "accepted" it, which I don't think was true. If this wasn't the intent of the section, then it should probably be better explained. --Jammoe 22:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going back through all the edits in the past, and I thought someone should reply to this fellow, so going through the article, in this humble reader's opinion the article makes it very well clear that Russel didn't himself subscribe to the argument, but just on the basis of its premises considered it sound; I think the above comment reflects, just speculating (not attacking you or anything man), a lack of understanding of the area of logic. In logic, acceptance of an argument as valid vs. subscribing to it in personal conviction, are different things. TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs) 23:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Eugenics and race

The quotations in the section Eugenics and race of the article are simply irreconcilable among themselves, in spite of the admirable efforts displayed by the editor.

Let's face the facts: Bertrand Russel was a racist, to the point of advocating birth control targeted only at "coloured races" ("Lecture by the Hon. Bertrand Russell", Birth Control News, vol. 1, no. 8, December 1922, p.2), and to describe the extermination of “negroes” only, all considered (and “apart from questions of humanity” [sic!]), as “undesirable” ([sic!], Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals, 1929).

In the course of time, he partly "softened" his views, partly changed their expression, when, especially after the II World War (Bertrand Russell, New Hopes for a Changing World, London: Allen & Unwin, 1951, p. 108), it would not have been “politically” correct” to display such outspoken racist and “eugenetic” views.

Also, probably Bertrand Russel realized that his former unrestrained racist and “eugenetic” views were not much in character with his post-war image of liberal, non-conformist, political agitator.
Miguel de Servet 17:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Miguel de Servet: You say that Russell changes his views after "it would not have been “politically” correct” to display such outspoken racist and “eugenetic” views. " Do you maintain that he changed his views when he did **because** it would have been unpopular not to? If you so maintain, you're committing a fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc.) If you do not so maintain, you're just stating the obvious; yes(I'll assume you're premises), he discarded his racist views after WWII, and after WWII was when racism and "eugenicism" became " 'politically' correct," - therefore Russell discarded his racist views when his racist views became "'politically' incorrect." So which is it? Are you making a bad inference, or is the law of identity just that fascinating? "probably Bertrand Russel realized that his former unrestrained racist and 'eugenetic' views were not much in character with his post-war image of liberal, non-conformist, political agitator." Either you have an inductive proof for this or you intuit it. A (cogent) inductive proof would be interesting. (In coming up with it, you'll have to account for the possibility that Russell actually believed what he said.) An intuition would not be so. But I'll assume what you say is interesting, and I'll consequently be waiting for your cogent inductive proof... Raimm 04:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging from chronology alone, it would seem that before 1929 he was unabashedly racist and from at least 1932 he was beginning to rethink that view.--Rob117 05:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Right besides the fact that it is entirely normal to go through 62 years as a racist and then change those views, and then in your 90s partaking in civil disobedience against racial discrimination.

It's not that hard to argue he was just using the language of the times and was commenting on the issues of the times. If those are the best examples, I don't think there is much of a case. --24.57.157.81 04:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe there is anything to face here - to counter the first comment. Russell did not believe that every men is equal, but he was not racist and I don't think the claim is justified looking at the time period and his comments. Here is a passage from Lincoln : "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race..." But still I do not think Lincoln was racist.

I think it's pretty clear the Lincoln was racist, and I don't know why you would dismiss that idea without providing a counterargument besides "still I do not think Lincoln was racist". You can be against the institution of slavery and still be an unrepentant racist. The two are not mutually exclusive. I assume Malcolm X was against slavery even though he exhibited tremendous racism until shortly before his assassination. Vedder110 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So, because of the "time period" they were not racist, no matter what they said or thought? That's very strange.--Fracastorius 09:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln was a supremacist; Bertrand Russell was a supremacist. Eugenics, British imperialism, tropical labor camps, the U.S. civil war, abolition, reconstruction, Western liberalism: all processes & ideologies undertaken by the Anglo-American elite to foster, protect & promulgate the global hegemony of those of European heritage. Hegemony - domination - supremacy. If rendered as such semantically, do any of you care to quibble with these historic truisms? sewot_fred 02:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rande M Sefowt: Your comment is an excellent piece of rhetoric, and it thus seems beautifully written. But like many other excellent pieces of rhetoric which (by their being excellent pieces of rhetoric) seem beautifully written, it has little substance; it contains phrases which (I think) are meaningless. In particular, what in Jove's name does "rendered as such semantically" mean? And what in Hera's is a "historic truism?" Raimm 04:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone mostly ignorant of Russell's work, I am perhaps in a good position to judge the section on race and eugenics as confusing and poorly written. One paragraph in particular (the one with all the ampersands) sounds like a hectoring rant about what an evil racist man Russell was - which is in complete disagreement with the other, more moderate paragraphs which attempt to rationalise the seeming contradictions in his views on other races. I particularly enjoy how the paragraph calls a preceding argument 'wholly ridiculous'. If someone who is knowledgeable on the subject wants to edit it to present in a fair and NPOV the various interpretations of his views on race, that would be very useful. ApathyAndExhaustion 09:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have radically rewritten the section in question. Nothing in the text seriously supports an argument that he favored eugenics; advocating birth control in the third world and expressing concern over population growth does not qualify by any measure. The rest--on racism--is simply bunk, complete and total fabrications hinging on a deliberate misinterpretation of a few key passages in contradiction to Russell's own statements and longstanding views. The only people I know of who take that position at all seriously are extreme fringe groups such as followers of Lyndon Larouche; their views do not belong anywhere in the article. I support reducing the accusations of racism down to a single passage, perhaps a sentence or two, and will do so shortly unless citations from credible commentators accusing him of racism can be produced. We cannot simply say that 'some people' have accused him of racism; we must cite who. If we cannot produce that (or if it is only fringe maniacs such as Larouche), the view does not belong in the article. Interpreting quotes ourselves (or trying to arrange selectively-chosen quotes in order to imply an interpretation) is original research; only interpretations cited to a credible source can be present in the article. --Aquillion 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A passage I just read from: Principles of Social Reconstruction, London: Allen & Unwin; Why Men Fight, New York: The Century Companies (Appleton-Century- Crofts), 1916. (page 477 of Routledge´s basic writings).

"Our present system is wasteful of human material, partly through damage to the health and efficiency of industrial workers, especially when women and children are employed, partly through the fact that the best workers tend to have small families and that the more civilized races are in danger of gradual extinction. Every great city is a centre of race-deterioration. For the case of London this has been argued with a wealth of statistical detail by Sir H. Llewelyn Smith; and it cannot easily be doubted that it is equally true in other cases. "

He was a racist not only in relation to less "civilized races", but also in relation to ordinary working class people who are not "the best workers". Seems pretty unambiguous to me. At least any change in his position would have to be explained.... I´m new to Russell so I won´t write it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.126.200.128 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a smoking-gun. What an amazing bit of exegesis. (Sarcasm intended.) Teetotaler 9 December, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.144.114 (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Influences and Influenced

I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC ^Talk 14:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal

I have removed the following:

Millions looked up to Russell over the course of his long life, holding him to be a prophet of the creative and rational life; at the same time, his stances on many topics were controversial, and millions more hated him. Both positions may be summarized by the epithet he earned: "Hammer of the Christians".

... because it is weaselly and, as long as it remains unsourced, meaningless. The fact of the controversy surrounding him should be stated as such, rather than with such silly unattributed bits of rhetoric like "a prophet of the creative and rational life". The nickname is interesting but again unsourced; Google gives no support to it whatsoever. — Dan | talk 22:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all nonsense. The nickname is made up. --Dannyno 15:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I have nominated this for WP:GA/R due to inadequate referencing. I hope the article gets the attention it deserves during this process to retain its quality rating. Please see discussions at Wikipedia:Good_article_review#Bertrand_Russell. I also hope someone will add an {{ArticleHistory}} template to this page. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This article Bertrand Russell seems to be suffering from tag-itis. The number of citation tags etc makes the article look unprofessional.

The article is a good article, but it can and should be improved. The mention of views which were on occasion expressed by Russell and which have been characterized as racist needs to be handled delicately, NPOV, which needs a good editor, not necessarily better references. That Russell lived through most of the century, therefore influencing nearly everyone, and being influenced by many, is beyond dispute, but not necessarily supported by a hundred references. So much work has gone into this article, perhaps some little tidying or freshening is needed? This would be work for experienced editors (much more experienced).

suggestions?--Newbyguesses 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ps, the thought just occurred to me that the two citations needed in the firstpara could probably be answered with source Russell's last letter, read at a conference on the day after his death. Can't remember where that source is just now? --Newbyguesses 17:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering it is in the scope of eight WikiProjects, possibly we could get at least one of them to begin work. Something for the main contributing editor/s of this article to consider. I would leave messages on project pages.

Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 18:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA status

This article was beyond GA review and, thus, has been speedily delisted. Its current state is no where near GA quality. There needs to be many more references and inline citations for an article of this length and, as a biography, there really needs to be a high standard with those references. Once the quality of this article has been improved, it may be renominated for GA. If it is felt that this decision was made in error, remediation may be requested at WP:GA/R. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 17:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Two citations for a 77k long article is ridiculous, especially for a biographical article!—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 18:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Error in paragraph Second World War?

After the Second World War, Russell taught at the University of Chicago,

Shouldn't that rather be Before ...? (as I understand other pages about Russell and given that it seems out of place if after is really meant) --84.152.2.218 01:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins influenced by Russell?

The article says that biologist Richard Dawkins is influenced by Bertrand Russell. I don't see the influence philosopher Bertie has on biologist Dawkins. There are plenty people who have undergone more influence of Russell.

Dawkins borrowed the orbiting teapot argument off Russell for a start. If there's a deeper, philosophical, influence the claim should be sourced. --Dannyno 10:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC

I should think that all teapots are orbitting the sun, unless NASA has sent one outside the solar system at vast expense. --Philogo 02:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins also quotes Russell numerous times in his books, including The God Delusion. h3h (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That said, almost all modern critics of religion have been influenced by Russell due to his popular and compelling arguments against it. I think a mention of Russell's influence on Dawkins belongs in Richard Dawkins, not here. h3h (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

English or Welsh?

The main article states that he's Welsh, but the categories at the bottom of the page have him in "English Philosophers" and "English anti-communists". So which is it? —77.101.35.67 (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a rather silly attempt to "claim" him for the Welsh. He was born to an aristocratic English family, brought up in England and spent nearly all of his working life in England. He is well known as an English philosopher and there are plenty of references to this. I will change it to British, as a compromise position, but in all honesty I think it should be English. There is more to nationality than simply birthplace. --Archstanton 09:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Change to English, which is his own usage; we've had this before. Even claiming Monnouthshire as Wales in 1872 is eminently disputable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed someone had changed it to Welsh again. Have reverted. --Archstanton 12:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this thread. Monmouthshire is, and always has been, part of Wales. I understand that Monmouthshire has been referred to differently from the rest of Wales (as in 'Wales and Monmouthshire') because it was part of the Oxford judicial circuit for purely administrative purposes. This and, more thoroughly, this explains much better than I have, why people have been confused about Monmouthshire. And if you're not convinced after that, have a look at the names of Monmouthshire's towns and villages and compare them to placenames in England. Q.E.D. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add new comments to the end! The Oxford Judicial Circuit evidence is important, but the placename evidence is essentially irrelevant. There are plenty of Welsh placenames in Shropshire, and there are a fair few English placenames in Wales — we wouldn't want to say that Wrexham is English because its name is. But John Davies is a highly reputable source. That said, a person's birthplace alone does not dictate their nationality. garik (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, place name evidence is irrelevant to Bertram Russell's nationality. I'm not claiming he was Welsh, nor am I claiming he was English. The reason for my post was to correct the misinformation posted, and left without correction, as people reading it might believe it to be true. By the way your contention that "There are plenty of Welsh place names in Shropshire" doesn't seem to agree with Category:Towns in Shropshire - of the 22 towns listed only on has a Welsh name - Clun - and that's named after the river - or Category:Villages in Shropshire - of the near 400 villages listed, only 13 have Welsh names. And all of those are either around Oswestry (well known as an area with a strong Welsh presence) or straddle the border. Yours Daicaregos (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wales belongs to England. England conquered it. Now Wales has funny little street signs and people trying to relearn a dead language. P.s. I'm American.TCO (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're an American. You probably know all about British history then. Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your research into, and understanding of, history and linguistics, on the country pages - Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It's not really the place for it here, is it. Yours Daicaregos (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

England, Britain. It's all Limeys. And Scotland and Wales are just parts of it. They're not contries. Do they have their own armies? No.TCO (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. garik (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Louis Pojman

It's a bit strange to see Louis Pojman referred to in this article as a theologian. Pojman was a philosopher, not a theologian. His academic positions were in philosophy, and his contributions to the field of philosophy are indisputable. I know of no contribution from him to the field of theology. Parableman 17:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Renom

I've replaced the remaining {{fact}} tags with references, and it looks like those and the rest should cover everything. I've put it up for another GA Review, hopefully it'll make it this time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

GA quick fail

This article is obviously very detailed, but currently a user cannot verify any of that detail (there are even uncited direct quotations). Much more of this article needs to be sourced using inline citations or some other form of citation. The editors might take a moment to peruse some of wikipedia's FA biographies, such as Balzac, and some of its other GA biographies, such as W. H. Auden, to get a sense of what is required. Awadewit | talk 03:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

Is it possible that he suffered from Asperger syndrome? —143.117.23.221 (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

All I could find were rather speculative pieces. I found a bit more though on Wittgenstein though. Come to think of it I'm not surprised especially considering the whole Popper/Poker incident.

Exiledone (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

He quite possibly did have Asperger, but you need a good cite before including it in the article.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Everybody quite possibly has Asperger, and quite possible owns a teapot in orbit round the sun. Not really worth mentioning in everybody's biography though, is it? --Philogo 23:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome refers to the "mild" end of the "Autistic Spectrum". On the one hand, everyone could be considered to be on the spectrum, somewhere, as presumably everyone has at least some autistic features to some extent. On the other hand, academicians, all suffer from one very clear autistic feature, which is a strong interest in some aspect of trivia that is of considerably less interest to others. Therefore, anyone who is a well-regarded expert in some academic field should be regarded as at least slightly suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aebarschall (talk • contribs) 21:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Great Minds, Great Thinkers

The page on Bertrand Russel at [1] is nearly word-for-word identical to this entry. I assume it is the one plagarising, rather than the other way round, but I thought you all should knowIsaac Benaron 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Many sites suck up Wikipedia's content, which is freely redistributable under the GFDL license. But thanks for posting! --Lquilter (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I think the article would benefit from a section devoted to criticism of some of his theories. Many Analytic philosophers disagree with some of his theories especially his theories on epistemology. It would also make the article more neutral. Exiledone (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, separate criticism sections are not a good idea; a separate section simultaneously ghettoizes and decontextualizes criticism, and serves as a troll magnet. It's far better stylistically and content-wise to embed and contextualize critiques in the appropriate sections. I suggest that you add some material directly to those sections--it would be great to have a bit of information describing the impact & reception & continuing assessment of Russell's contributions to epistemology. --Lquilter (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Topics from 2008

Between the wars, and second marriage

There is a problem in this section which is simple but I don’t know how to solve it and thought someone else could. The problem is in the following text and its link: “Russell's marriage to Dora grew increasingly tenuous, and it reached a breaking point over her having two children with an American journalist, Griffin Barry.“ When you click on the link to Griffin Barry or look Griffin Barry up with the search engine, it goes to the article on Dora Russell. Barry is mentioned near the end of the article but does not seem to have an article of his own.Jgmccue (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Barry has no article of his own right now. The article he originally had was short, and was redirected to Dora Russell, probably due to him being non-notable. I've removed the links to Griffin Barry to avoid the confusion. You may argue to delete the redirect altogether at WP:RFD. –Pomte 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Empiricist-rationalist

The into sentence of this article described Russell as, among other things, a "prominent rationalist." I noticed this didn't completely gel with what I personally have learned (I'm an undergraduate philosophy student) so I ran a quick Google search to see if either the article or myself were off base. The vast majority of online sources describe Russell as something in between[2], such as a "rational empiricist," or even primarily as a logical empiricist (Hjørland, "Journal of documentation," 2005 p. 131) This own article even talks about Russell's own strains of empiricism in the "Logical atomism" section. I realize that the two are not mutually exclusive, but I feel describing Russell solely as a "prominent rationalist" in the first sentence with no empiricist counterbalance is misleading. I've removed the words "prominent rationalist" from the end of the sentence. Thoughts? 134.69.168.154 (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Empiricist-Rationalist

You raise a good point. Empiricist-rationalist is a bit better, though something else may still be more accurate. In philo 101, BR inevitably gets lumped in with the Analytical Positivists, and that's BR's conventional designation, so it's debatable whether to put that.

He's really not one of them, though, at least in the modern sense - in terms of his conclusions or his methods. Personally, I think empiricist-rationalist is better than AP in that context. By the end of his life, he wasn't even vaguely close to AP. He was influenced by Bergson.

I suppose you could place BR in a larger rationalist tradition, though I think it's not accurate given his almost wholesale rejection of the Continental Tradition after Kant, generally referred to as Rationalists. It makes the article confusing. Guinness4life (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"anti-communist"

User:Smiloid added the "anti-communist" category to this article and Emma Goldman, based on their ultimate opposition to Soviet state Communism. This is a confusion between "communism" and "Communism". The category currently is "anti-communist" -- small c -- denoting opposition to communism as a philosophical and political position. It was historically inaccurate to describe Goldman as anti-communist, although of course she did end up being critical of capital-C Communist. A similar problem exists for use of this category here. It's my understanding that Russell was a socialist, and although opposed to the Soviet state, was not in any sense "anti-communist" (lower-c). I suggest removing the category, but post here for discussion by regular editors first. --Lquilter (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some socialist are anti-communist. I think Russel was an anti-communist. I will try to find a source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

anti-leninist and critical of marxism, not anti-communist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Comments have been moved to Talk:Bertrand Russell/GA Review

-[ Derek.cashman 18:44, 8 April 2008]

Lead

I think this article is very good. However, the lead of the article should be expanded. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Split

I'm proposing to split this article. Creating a new page Philosophy of Bertrand Russel or Philosophical work of Betrand Russel. The first paragraphy in section 2 (Philosophical work) could stay as an intro, but the rest could be moved... Comments:

Done. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a good idea. While there may not be any other major philosophers with quite as active and varied a public life as Russell had, it's standard for biographies of philosophers to, y'know, feature their philosophical work. I'd like to see what other people think about this split. Moreover, we should certainly include more information on the main page even if we leave the bulk of it on another page. JustinBlank (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a good idea. His philosophical work should be featured in this biography, not in any other article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It would surely be just nonsense to write an article about a philosopher and a matehhematican without decribing their work. Would we similarly split the "split" the biographies of say Newton, Hitler, Alexander the Great and Beethoven so that their biographies said nothing about their scientific work, political activities, military conquests and music respectively?--Philogo 23:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The split was done without consensus. Russell is known mainly for his philosophical work. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected Philosophical work of Bertrand Russell to Bertrand Russell#Philosophical work. The biography is incomplete with his philosophical work. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What should be done is moving his highly notable philosophical work to its own article, which then ought to be summarized in the biography - just as is done with other philosophers of high renown i.e. Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, Philosophy of Max Stirner. the skomorokh 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not thnk we should MOVE this article's "remarks on his highly notable philosophical work" to its own article and substiture a summary here. It is already just a bare summary. If an editor is knowlegable enough about Russell's philosophical work to write a full article then be bold and go for it. The put a link to the new article in this article. --Philogo 02:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The above responses are crazy. The article is way too large. There is no valid reason for not splitting it just like other the articles of other philosophers have been. Their philosophy is simply a subject in itself. It's not part of their biography, it's their body of work. By not splitting the article, it implies that Bertrand Russell's philosophy is not as significant as other philosophers. It also inhibits the expansion of the section on his philosophy, as the article gets bigger and bigger and more and more awkward to edit. After the split is when the articles on the philosophy itself really start to expand and grow! Yworo (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

bad photo choice

I hope this is the right venue for sharing this opinion I don't want to edit the article, but would like to suggest that wikipedia consider using a different photo of Russell. There is a universally accepted image of Russell (older, with the unkempt hair) which you are avoiding with that ridiculously early picture. To me, it makes the whole page look laughably esoteric, like an annoying fan who says he stopped paying attention after the band's first album.

Why use that photo? The worst sin you can make, as an encyclopedia, is provide information to new readers that will actually make them look like a fool if they use it. A person who describes Russell with your picture will be laughed at. —99.145.165.198 (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We are basically restricted to using "free" images, i.e. those which have been released with very few restrictions on their use. David Underdown (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A better picture is further down in the article, but it's a book cover, so it can only be used where the book is discussed, not at the top of the article.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to find a better picture. The image of Russell in the infobox is poor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The first photo shown is a good choice because it shows Russell as he was at the time when he was younger and wrote his most important work. I cannot see why anybody would laugh at that rather than be interested.--Philogo 23:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where else to put this comment, so I'll put it here. Russel's picture needs to seriously be changed. He SHOULD NOT be looking like a man from the 1880s, when there are other, better pictures of him suavely in his older years without that ridiculous mustache. I demand there be put up a more contemporary photo of Bertrand where he a) he has no mustache, b) he has white, gray hair, and c) he is smoking a pipe. This will give wikipedia, which is somewhat the point of wikipedia, a more use-friendly feel to Russel. Thank you. —131.212.128.99 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of moving this comment to a new section. garik (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I heartily agree with our anonymous colleague. Any chance of a free photo? the skomorokh 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay for the sake of female Wikipedia readers. It's painful to think there are people out there who are anti-mustache. He looks quite handsome and sophisticated. Erudecorp ? * 23:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay because it is a less common photo and taken nearer the time when he was doing his most important philosophical work. I feel the saem about Einstein really, we keep seeing that silly cliche photo of him sticking a tongue out at the press. Boring and predicatble! I agree he looks handsome and sophisticated, which is only right and proper because he was. --Philogo 01:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving the more recent photo comments to this paragraph because there seems no good reason to have more than on paragraph on this same topic. --Philogo 02:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that there should be two pictures of Russell, the one on the page and a later one if freely available copies of the newer picture are available. Frankly, most of us have other things to do than to hunt down photo permissions. I myself prefer the younger picture, because it does capture the sweep of his most important work, and the way he was brought up (this is a biography - it should start with how the man started). If a later picture could be inserted next to a section pertinent to the year of that picture, that would be grand. So those of you wishing to have one - go find one, upload it, go through the copyright issues with Wikipedia and be happy that you helped with a great article. It is a great article.--Levalley (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How can it be ridiculous for him to look like a man from the late 19th century? It's a photograph, not photoshop.86.162.37.228 (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hero??

P O V!! The article really sounds like a fan letter... i didn't think such a whitewash could last so long on this site. How can someone who postulates such thing as these...

The Society of Experts and the Oblivious Masses

“The society of experts which I am imagining will embrace all eminent men of science except a few wrong-headed and anarchical cranks. It will possess the sole up-to-date armaments, and will be the repository of all new secrets in the art of war. There will, therefore, be no more war, since resistance by the unscientific will be doomed to obvious failure. The society of experts will control propaganda and education. It will teach loyalty to the world government, and make nationalism high treason. The government, being an oligarchy, will instil submissiveness into the great bulk of the population, confining initiative and the habit of command to its own members. It is possible that it may invent ingenious ways of concealing its own power, leaving the forms of democracy intact, and allowing the plutocrats to imagine that they are cleverly controlling these forms. Gradually, however, as the plutocrats become stupid through laziness, they will lose their wealth; it will pass more and more into public ownership and be controlled by the government of experts. Thus, whatever the outward forms may be, all real power will come to be concentrated in the hands of those who understand the art of scientific manipulation.” -236

This idea of concealing the real power structure from the masses was later described by Bertrand Russell in his book The Impact of Science on Society[2] (1952):

“Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen [...]” - 41

...someone who thinks that.. be regarded as humanitarian and freethinking?? And then go on to postulate that he is somehow Anti-communist, Anti-Hitler, and Anti-Stalin?? The ideas he champions are the blueprints for every textbook dictatorship set up in the history of civilization! —66.235.86.73 (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That book doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fellowship of Trinity College?

I'm pretty sure that Russell did not hold a fellowship at the time of his anti-war activities and therefore could not be deprived of it: I don't have the sources by me but am changing it to "position" until someone can check. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad mistakes

I quote: "What is certain is that in 1901 Russell's own reflections on the issues raised by the paradox that takes his name Russell's Paradox, formalised 30 years later by Kurt Gödel's 'Undecidability' Theorems, led him to doubt the certainty of mathematics. This doubt was perhaps Russell's most important 'influence' on mathematics, and was spread throughout the European universities, even as Russell himself laboured (with Alfred North Whitehead) in a futile attempt to solve the Paradox."

Almost everything is wrong here; the complete lack of competence of the author is testified by the mere claim that Russell's Paradox was formalized "30 years later by Kurt Gödel's 'Undecidability' Theorems". This is in fact a trivial mistake, it's actually a pack of mistakes. However, the following claims are much worse. The claims about the alleged doubts on the certainty of mathematics and the alleged "futility" of the attempt to solve the Paradox are unbelievable. No decent student or honest beginner could say anything like that. What could I say. Just go and study, read a bit. Mainly, do not use Wikipedia as a chair for pretending to teach subjects which you don't have the least idea of. Articles like this are simply harmful. Why does the people in Wikipedia not simply ask some competent scholar (but even an average teacher would do much better than the author of this stuff) to write down a draft, or to correct this one? As an alternative, why don't you ask, say, Stanford Encyclopedia for a permission to publish an abridged version of their articles? That would be ---- honest. -[ 151.16.54.236 17:24, 30 October 2008]

• 11-Nov-2008: It took me a few days to check the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) and analyze the above remarks. Perhaps the Wikipedia (WP) article has some unsourced opinions, but the Stanford Encyc. articles for Russell & Wittgenstein were also crammed with tons of opinions in them. Neither of those articles would work on WP because they are far too narrow: it's the "Stanford Encyc. of Philosophy" only, and not biographies of 4 marriages and protest marches. Because Wikipedia covers everything, the WP article on Russell is 10x to 100x times more information than the SEP. As for the Stanford Encyc. on "Wittgenstein" (uber-famous guy) - that article was a bunch of opinions with very few quotes from Wittgy or his reviewers having "conundrums" about his "covering all by being silent about the rest" and other stuff typically said by a smart-alec word prankster. I would hope an article on Wittgy would quote notable people saying he played word-games trolling philosophers during his "troll period" (or such), but don't even let Stanford Encyc. try to tell intelligent people that "Wittgy was the greatest" without attempting to quote sources that Wittgy tried punking the world, when realists were "educating" philosophers that time slows down in a strong gravitational field, and atomic clocks on airplanes flying east ran 59 nanoseconds slower than clocks on Earth, etc. And, I wouldn't blame Wittgy going bonkers about time dilation or computers injected via needles: no single person fully understands all that. Bottom line: the Einstein/Bohr revelations by 1922 had made "philosophers" obsolete unless they spoke tensor calculus (etc.) to model reality: the English language could no longer represent truth about Life, the universe, and everything. So let's update the Wikipedia "Russell" & Wittgy articles about tensor calculus, which Stanford Encyc. of Philosophy probably won't cover. Thus, WP will not benefit by getting all article content from the Stanford Encyc. (which seems 10x to 100x more narrow than WP). -Wikid77 (talk)

I am not sure this is the right place for posting this comment; I apologize for being unfamiliar with Wikipedia discussions. Wikid77's remarks above are straight unbelievable. I do hope that her or his stuff is read by someone who knows something about the topics she or he frantically touches upon. If you are one who is responsible for Wikipedia's reliability, please, please give this stuff to read to anyone who has a basic knowledge about Russell's thought -- there are plenty of university teachers who would be happy to contribute a comment. Sure, biography is not merely intellectual biography. But this does not give a biographer a right to make enormous mistakes. For example, someone should tell Wikid77 that Russell's paradox has nothing to do with Goedel's 1931 proof. This is not a matter of "unsourced opinions"! It is an elementary mistake that no student in logic would make. I find it incredible -- and a bit disquieting -- that nothing is said about Russell in Wikid's reply, but a lot is said by her or him about Wittgenstein; a mass of incongruous data none of which is to the point. I have studied Wittgenstein during much of my life, taught Wittgenstein courses for several years, published several books and papers etc. This is not to boast, only to plead my case. Wikid's stuff on Wittgenstein shocked me as entirely inconsistent and conceited. I warmly recommend that everything he or she contributed to the article on Russell be seriously revised by competent readers.

Analytical Philosophy

If user(s) 134.226.1.229 at Trinity College Dublin doubts that Russell was a founder of what came to be called Analytic philosophy, please read the article Analytic philosophy and relevannt sources and then take the debate up on its talk page. Note 134.226.1.229 has had many warning about vandalism. --Philogo 01:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Improving this article

Please read Talk:Bertrand Russell/GA Review where there are number of suggestions and criticisms that could be usefully pursued. So fas as I can see they do not include changing the photo. --Philogo 02:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Verbosity

Quote:

First, it is way too long, and the writing and prose is very verbose and could be pruned and paraphrased in a lot of ways to shorten the article.

Talk:Bertrand Russell/GA Review: [emphasis added]

I consider the following an example of the verbosity which make this article painful to read (like an essay padded out to acheive the requiried number of lines for a term paper:

Perhaps Russell's most systematic, metaphysical treatment of philosophical analysis and his empiricist-centric logicism is evident in what he called Logical Atomism, which is explicated in a set of lectures, "The Philosophy of Logical Atomism," which he gave in 1918.

Does any body care to join me in wielding the blue pencil? --Philogo 02:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I wield alone--Philogo 00:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm reducing British-Empire wording. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers/subpages

08-Nov-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. The topic-year boundaries were located by searching from bottom for the prior year#. Afterward, I dated/named unsigned comments and moved 9 entries (including "Ontological Argument" & "Bad mistakes") into date order for 2007 & 2008.
Then I added "Talk-page subpages" above the TOC. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Putting Notes/References

08-Nov-2008: I have modified the bottom references to have the typical headers "Notes" & "References" per WP:GUIDE. The intent is to identify the major sources of the article (where 80% of text is usually based on 20% of sources). For simplicity, minor sources will be listed only under "Notes" so that the works under References will be the major sources. Also, footnotes under Notes can be any comments, not just citations naming the source documents. Under "External links" the 3 sub-sections were converted to bold titles (not listed in Table of Contents). -Wikid77 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Splitting article into 3 or 4

08-Nov-2008: The article is was already 101kb (where 32kb is considered large), so splitting into 3 or 4 parts has reduced each sub-article to 50kb (or less). Bertrand Russell is a subject that is too large for one article: a very famous man who lived/worked 80 years after college, writing 30,000 letters & many books. Also, as a philosopher, his viewpoints will be compared with many other philosophers, causing the article text to explode over 5x times beyond merely stating his viewpoints alone. I suggest began the following split:

• Bertrand Russell - trimmed to summarize sub-articles;
• Bertrand Russell views on society - new, extracting from the section "Activism";
• Bertrand Russell views on philosophy - new, extracted from large sections "Philosophical work" and "Influence on philosophy".

The new sub-articles can be were copied verbatim from the current (approved) text, and now those sections can be greatly trimmed, as short summaries, removing the long quotations which are moved into the subarticles. Although it can be tempting to condense all information into a single, solid Wikipedia article, the reality is that the man worked 80 years (after college) and changed his viewpoints on many subjects, several times each. When saying "Russell believed...", it is necessary to state the date, before his beliefs changed again. A single Wiki article should not be forced to handle that broad scope of details. It is too stifling when someone wants to add another paragraph to a huge article: there's no room left for improvement. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• 08-Nov-2008: I have split the huge article, but reduced only 10k of text about philosophy, so far, as page-size 91kb. If the 3 sections about "Philosophical work" & "Activism" & Selected bibliography were removed entirely, the 101kb page size would become 42kb. I plan to reduce the list of Selected works (linking to the full list in "Bertrand Russell views on philosophy"), shortening the text by 7kb to page-size 84kb. The article is simply huge, huge, huge. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You did not wait long for comments on your proposal. Why was that?--Philogo 00:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC) I think there shoudl be some discussion befre you make such a drastic change. I am minded to revert your edit unless other editors express a concensus supproting your change. Hope you don't mind. Philogo 00:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• 09-Nov-2008: Sorry for the shock. The article had already failed the Good-Article (GA) review, due to verbose text, so splitting out the verbose details allows many direct quotes to be retained (in the smaller subarticles). The GA Review has already "pre-authorized" the significant reduction in the text of the article; however, now the subarticles capture all the original detail, so the overall information about Russell can be retained, even though the main article must be heavily trimmed to achieve even a Good-Article standing. At this point, the article is 90% of the original wording, but still too verbose to pass the GA review. Either way, the main article must be trimmed, but now, there is no fear of losing too much detail (when trimming to meet GA standards), because the subarticles provide a safety net allowing very fast revision of the main article to meet those standards. Sorry for the rapid (large) change, but the main article is not really directly affected, while the subarticles are free to be expanded over 10% each. Wikipedia articles are limited to roughly 32kb to support smaller browsers, while the main article had become 101kb. Also, Google has been known to stop indexing a page after 100kb, leaving the remainder of the text unsearchable, so there are numerous reasons to trim the main article: it really has been a huge webpage. Feel free to re-add crucial text to the main article, but overall, large amounts of other text must be trimmed somewhere to meet the GA standards. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody seems to supprt the manner in which you have sought to improve the article, so I propsue to revert your reviswions, unless I hear from aautohr supporting your edit. I did note that the idea of spllting off Russell's philosphiocal work to another article was disussed and rejected before. I would have thought thatverbose text should be eleimanted rather than split off, but let's see what others say. If no support fortomiung for your stragey, then I will revert.--Philogo 01:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. What precisely was the point of splitting out those article and then leaving the same content in this article. While some people may have resistance to change, in this case the change was good, take my word for it. Yworo (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Trimming text: 5,000 words is 35kb

09-Nov-2008: The Good-Article (GA) review described the article as "way too long" to pass the GA standard. How big was it? In October 2008, is was 101kb, equivalent to nearly 14,700 words about Russell (averaging 6-letter words). After moving text to "Bertrand Russell views on philosophy", the text was reduced to 91kb or 12,900 words. For years, Wikipedia has warned that smaller browsers limit webpage size to 32kb or 4680 words:

• 32kb is nearly 4,680 words: 32*1024 / 7 = ~4681 (6-letter + space).

To reduce the main article from 12,900 to 4,900 words, then 8,000 words must go, and I don't know if that is where the future is headed. Reducing the main article (by 2/3) would mean cuts:

• similar to each 100-word paragraph reduced below 33 words;
• like 50-word quotes trimmed to 16 words (with "..." between);
• like a 30-word sentence shortened to 10 words.

That's why I'm thinking the easier solution is to also move major sections into sub-articles: perhaps a "Bertrand Russell list of works" could contain most of the 15kb of bibliography and external-link text. Plus, a separate list-of-works could also allow more details, such as connections with:

• Google Books or other sources that might contain pages from selected books.

Anyway, if 32kb were the goal size, then 8,000 words must go. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Blue pencil

There is so much verbosity and reperticion in thism articel, togehter with uninterting and irrelevant triva, that theyre should be little diffcuolt in reduing its size without loss of valuable content or exporting the dross to sub articles. Where aan article already exists (eg theory of decsrioptun) there is no need to go over it all agaan here using 200 words or more. Does the reader really nned to knw so much about all his ancestors. Doen't REALLY tell you that much about the man does it? Come on lads, out with that blue pencil! --Philogo 02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• 11-Nov-2008: It might be necessary to directly notify the 8 Wikiprojects working on this article, to enlist their help. I came to this article as a tangent from many other tangents (after putting about 357,000 changes in other articles). I thought I could help by creating a 4-way split of the article, where each part could be improved separately: this article grew to massive size over at least 3 years of continual growth. I hate the idea of "900" revisions to reduce text to Good-Article levels: just condense whole sections within "Philosophical work" and "Activism" (removing hundreds of words per edit), knowing that details are preserved safely in the subarticles. We must think big to achieve "Wikipedia:100000 feature-quality articles" (or even good ones) in a few years. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be right or you may be wrong about "could help by creating a 4-way split of the article but since the idea of splitting off just one article, i.e. on his philosphical works was previous discussed and rejected, (see "Split" above) it is wrong to go ahead and split the article without waiting for connsensus from others. You should await the views of members of the 8 Wikiprojects you say are working on this aricle. If you have merely "came to this article as a tangent from many other tangents (after putting about 357,000 changes in other articles" perhaps you might meanwhile works on someother article. There are apparently plenty of projects devoted to this one, and presumably there members have a specaili interst and special knowledge of the subject matter. --Philogo 13:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article was already split. The portion split out were never deleted. We don't leave duplicated material just laying around. If the article was split, it's split. If you don't like how it was split or the names of the subarticles, don't just revert, discuss and adjust. Adjust and discuss. Yworo (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Topics from 2009

Amusing quotes

Bertrand Russel is known for a number of amusing and edifying quotes. It would be nice to get someof these into the article to make it come alive a bit more. Aebarschall (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Russell is more noted as a thinker than a comedian.--Philogo (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to debate that a little. One of the reasons I like Russell so much is that, when he moves outside of logic (and sometimes even inside it), he's funny. He has style and wit. He is not dry. This is important to his philosophy. It is part of his tone. And, he was famous for many things - when you get a Nobel Prize in Literature, everything you write becomes important to your biography. Russell wrote magazine articles on what color lipstick women should wear (and it was very suave and witty), and he did that for quite awhile. It's part of his work. A few choice quotes are highly appropriate.Levalley (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Most people would rather die than think. In fact, they do." (Russell's comment on WW I). I'm also a fan of Russell's quotes, but we're being bedeviled by typespace limitations, on behalf of 32 kB max limit browers, long obsolete. Hey, Wikipedia-- it's 2009. My iPhone will download longer articles than that.

  My vote for a Russell quote which hasn't gone in yet, is the 5-paragraph Prologue of his autobiography (What I have Lived For, July 1956 [3]), which gives an idea of his writing style, his own evaluation of the passions which drove his life, and a nice summary, too. So it fills several functions at once. I'd put it right at the end of the bio section, before analysis of his work starts. <blockquote=Russell autobio>PROLOGUE: WHAT I HAVE LIVED FOR
  Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a deep ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair.
  I have sought love, first, because it brings ecstasy -- ecstasy so great that I would often have sacrificed all the rest of life for a few hours of this joy. I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness -- that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss. I have sought it, finally, because in the union of love I have seen, in a mystic miniature, the prefiguring vision of the heaven that saints and poets have imagined. This is what I sought, and though it might seem too good for human life, this is what -- at last -- I have found.
  With equal passion I have sought knowledge. I have wished to understand the hearts of men. I have wished to know why the stars shine. And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux. A little of this, but not much, I have achieved.
  Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a hated burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate the evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer.
  This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.

Re-edit. I just downloaded the Russell Wiki to my iPhone. It took 45 seconds, photos and all on the non-mobile version, which means the whole article came down (you can also do it by sections with the mobile version, which each take about 10 seconds). Once downloaded to the phone it takes 8 seconds to scroll, photos and all. Browser is Safari. Thus, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and assume what I assumed above, which is that WP's policies are aimed at people running TRS-80's with DOS and a telephone modem. I'll add the bio quote and see if the other editors geek. SBHarris 00:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobel laureate and choice of words

"In 1950, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."

I'd like a clarification on this: did he advocate "freethought" (a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of reason and logic applied to evidence), as is currently linked, or merely "freedom of thought" (the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints). Both definitions are from Wikipedia itself. If his views apply to both situations, maybe the phrase should link to both articles. 94.101.5.97 (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote is taken from the Nobel prize citation, so you'd have to ask them. If you can find the original presentation speech it may become more obvious. However their website doesn't include them that far back. Chris55 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Younger Russell

Reverted to picture of younger Russell (1907).--Philogo (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I see this has been reverted by an anon. We really should use both pictures; but at least we should discuss it here. I am restoring the 1907 picture; why not? We are not bound to presentism; least of all to a presentism of 1957, before many of us were born. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should use a photograph of him when he was young, because it was in later life that he became extremely well-known. I've added one from the Commons that is quite good quality. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, by any standards less than a Nobel Laureate who's gone into politics, he became well-known in 1908; but I have inserted the youthful photograph in its chronological place. This new one is an improvement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the present ordering. We need one of Russell somewhere in the 1920's or 30's, for continuity. In the U.S., the magic year of public domain of photos is 1923. I see it's different in Sweden (where this 1950 photo must have been taken when he went there for to receive the Nobel-- possibly it's the profile shot for his medal). The key question is: what is the magic public domain date now in England, where most of the Russell photos will have been taken? One of my favorite pics is on this blog where it is picked up by Google images: [4], but somehow I doubt if Wikipedia would consider it encyclopedic. SBHarris 20:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The cutoff point in the EU seems to be the death of the author plus 70 years. See Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That leaves us looking for photos of Russell by English photographers who died before ~1939. Not exactly a Wikipedia category (would be cute category for Commons to keep running track on such info on dead photographers as is available..). It's not quite useless, as (for example) it tells us imediately that the childhood photos taken by his crazy aunt Agatha, who lived to be about 100, and died in 1953, are not useable. Or won't be until 2023. Will keep an eye out for other pre-1939 photos that might be useful if we can track the maker. SBHarris 21:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Beacon Hill School (England) merger

The suggested merger of the Beacon Hill School stub(?) is a good one, I think. Anyone else? So far it doesn't look like there's been discussion on this; from the looks of it, its's so short that a merger shouldn't be difficult; note, though, I don't know if there's more information, however, that might be historically significant in the minds of others to make that school notable enough to have its own page per Wikipedia's guidelines. TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs) 23:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge The school is secondary to his life. History2007 (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support merge for now The article is a very small stub and could easily be incorporated. If it was significantly expanded though I can see greater merit in an independent child article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge and propose new article on Beacon Hill In late September (if not sooner), I shall post a lengthy (about 6 screens' worth) article on Beacon Hill School drawing on manuscript evidence from the Russell Archives, the Social History Archive in Amsterdam, and the PRO in Britain. The article will connect School to Bertrand Russell's substantial correspondence and publications on education from 1902 to the 1960s, and likewise deal with Dora Black Russell's work and thought (esp. 1926 onward). The latter quarter of the article sets the School in a wider context, comparing it to similar 20th-century schools in France, Germany, the USA, and Britain, and showing how its underlying policy and theory were the natural outcome of much older ideas and practices, and how it served in some measure to encourage supporters, imitators, and critics on both sides of the Atlantic from 1926 to the present. The article includes notes and references to just under one hundred manuscript and published records.

A philosopher colleague is meanwhile writing a new segment for direct insertion in the general article on Bertrand Russell, to cover Russell's educational theory and practice in more general terms, improving significantly on the present (extremely sketchy) text of the Russell article.

These additions and revisions will have cross references to numerous articles (on ideas, institutions, and persons) elsewhere in Wikipedia, and should make clear the contribution of Beacon Hill School in the histories of education, pedagogy, education administration, educational politics, notions of critical thinking, internationalism, and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montaigne1944 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Put small-font year headers

I have restored & converted the talk-page year headers down to a smaller-font size as in other talk-pages (for "Topics from 2006" etc.). -Wikid77 (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

cleanup tagged

I tagged the article with a cleanup needed template, because there are long lists of uncited names in the infobox's influences and influenced fields. Each needs a cite to follow Wikipedia policies WP:V and WP:No original research}. -84user (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

I think that Russel deserve specific article on his bibliography. There are so many books and artickles listed in main article that it makes confusion. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical work

In this article there are to much biographical information in compare with philosophical ones. For example in article Hillary Putnam there are just one part for biography and several for philosophical issues. Russel is, probably, more interesting person than many other philosophers but I suggest to expand sections about his philosophical work (I see that there are separate articles but I think main article is much more important). Best wishes. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   I agree with that completely.--MaxwellBennett 05:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxwellBennett (talk • contribs)  

Image

I find the image to be unsatisfactory so I will now change it.MaxwellBennett 05:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you haven't adequately proved that your replacement is acceptable for use. It's likely that the new image is still subjected to copyright, in which case we can't use it. I've swapped the images back, until you provided evidence that your new image satisifies WP:IUP. Gabbe (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My image was downloaded from a blog website. A google search showed that the image is available from at least two locations. Because of the image being reasonably old, I think I can safely say that the image is now part of the public domain. MaxwellBennett 03:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxwellBennett (talk • contribs)

It's fairly old, but it's not obvious that the image was made before 1923. In fact, given his apparent age, I think it is highly likely to be taken after World War II. See WP:PD and note that it is not sufficient to merely assume that the image is public domain, the onus is on you to prove that it is not protected by copyright. Gabbe (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is taken after World War II. I do not like the image of him taken from the side, because it looks silly. Perhaps you can change the picture to something else. MaxwellBennett 22:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxwellBennett (talk • contribs)

If it is taken after World War II, it is unlikely to be in the public domain. If you know of a better image that you are certain is not protected by copyright, feel free to add it to the article. Gabbe (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Influenced by Plato?

It's mentioned that Russell was influenced by Plato. But his school of thought was completely different from that of Plato plus when you read History of Western Philosophy written by Russell. You can find out Russell isn't that much interested in Plato and tries to oppose most of his arguments.--Arash Eb (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. He was a big on Socrates and Plato and to say he isn't influenced by him is crazy. Everyone in the west has been influenced by Plato. Writing critical analyses does not make one an opponent. 86.162.37.228 (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is obviously that great Greek philosophers such Plato and Aristotle influences whole Western philosophical tradion but I think that in infobox need to stay information about major influence od some thiner (in this case I think that it is much more relevant to mention Frege than Plato). Infobox is here to offer just basic information, not deeplz analysis of some topic in historz of philosophy.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Vegan bit

The editor who was adding that Russell followed a vegan diet appears to have been acting in good faith, assuming this isn't an issue that's come up before. Although it seems like a rather trivial piece of information, I figured I'd make a post here in case something comes of it. The only reason I used the revert button was their moving it around and leaving extra whitespace, which made it look like fooling around at first. Cheers. Recognizance (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy of Russell

Why is there nothing in the article outling his major philosophical ideas? I understand the importance if bio info, but I really would like to see more on his philosophical contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.89.12 (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Influence

Where is influence section in infobox?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit [5], as it lacked references, and had been a reason for the cleanup tag. If you'd like it back, please find enough refs to support everything. Fourth ventricle (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Percy Shelley and Euclid had a definite influence on Russell, supported by other wikipedia pages on this site, why were they taken off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragohunter (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If your thoughts are published and peer reviewed they might be valid. In the meantime this fails the verifiability guidelines. Fæ (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox regarding his philosophies

I propose that we bring up infobox regarding Bertrand Russell's works all the way up to the intro from the Views section. It is a bit of an inconvenience when someone is looking for them (e.g. me). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How? Because the way you did it before is just not justified; articles never link to templates like that, especially if said template is in the article already. And you can't go making rearrangements solely for personal convenience. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 06:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I just think that we ought to organize the info in a way that readers who want to look for more specific information about his philosophies instead of just him have an easier time finding it on this particular page. I do not know whether this can be called as "personal" convenience or not. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What they do is scroll down a bit and click on the "Views" title in the content table. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 07:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, look, what if they did not know that the infobox was there to begin with? Then they would have to spend their time looking for some particular writing or works on, say, "Russell's Teapot," scrolling through and finding the correct hyperlink in the biography section, and who knows when he wrote his essay on the Teapot. Besides, it looks better when placed alongside the infobox about his birth and death, etc., and that's why I proposed reorganization. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this, we merge the two infoboxes together. Is that okay? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

One question

Was Russely the most profilic author in philosophy (or one of the most profilic) in 20th century?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You should probably take that to the REFDESK. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for link. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Many pages of philosophers have their signature, can you add Russell's? Here is the link: http://www.fadedgiant.net/assets/images/russell_bertrand_signature_1.jpg --72.82.8.229 (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the source reliable? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

External links to Russell's writings

Since Russell was a British citizen, his writings are protected by copyright for 70 years after his death, that is, until 2040. It appears to me that most of the external links to his writings are posted in violation of copyright, in which case we cannot continue to link to them. Am I missing something here? Did he put all of his works into the public domain or something? Yworo (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Video interview

It would be interesting if we could find the rest of this interview and post it as an external link: "Smoking Saved my Life" Rklawton (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Pacifist

In support of today's edit by the IP that Russell had never been a pacifist, I have another citation (in addition to theirs from the Autobiography): "Russell had never been a pacifist" from pp. 497 of Monk, Ray. Bertrand Russell: The Spirit of Solitude, Simon and Schuster, 1996. Russell's anti-war activities and simultaneous failure to be a full pacifist is mentioned multiple times in Monk's two-volume biography. Calling him one, especially in the lead, is a serious misnomer. Grunge6910 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

From the lead, "Russell went to prison for his pacifist activism during World War I. Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the United States of America's involvement in the Vietnam War, and finally became an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament."

One doesn't have to be a "full pacifist", whatever that it, to be labeled a pacifist. If some called him a pacifist and others said he wasn't, then the lead needs to be rephrased to include both views. Yworo (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

He was an anti-war activist. That's quite different. He was never against war per se, which is what I take pacifisim to be. In fact, for a brief and strange period at the end of his life, he allied himself with anti-American guerrilla warriors and supported their wars (see the last chapters of the second volume of Monk's biography for citations there). So again, calling him a "pacifist" is pretty unintelligible and I suggest we take it out. Grunge6910 (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Read the pacifism page: "Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace."

Russell's views were within the range of views labeled "pacifism". You are making incorrect assumptions about what "pacifism" means. Yworo (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, as I've already said, I can cite places where Russell vocally supported war even in cases where it was not "absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace." I've cited a source, which happens to be the definitive biography of Russell, that says he was explicitly not a pacifist. If you can cite me one that says he was unambiguously one, I'd be satisfied. As it is, I think calling him one in the lead is highly misleading. Grunge6910 (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are thirteen sources that say explicitly "Bertrand Russell was a pacifist". It appears that most of them are reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Page 146 of his Autobiography says:

For a time, a sort of mystic illumination possessed me. ... Having been an Imperialist, I became during those five minutes a pro-Boer and a Pacifist. Having for years cared only for exactness and analysis, I found myself filled with semi-mystical feelings about beauty, with an intense interest in children, and with a desire almost as profound as that of the Buddha to find some philosophy which should make human life endurable.

He goes on to say the "mystic insight ... has largely faded", but something always remained. Evidently Russell was a pacifist at one point at least.Rgdboer (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A moralist dogmatically upholds moral codes regardless of the circumstances. A utilitarian takes the circumstances into account and calculates losses and gains of a particular action. Russell is a utilitarian, never a moralist. He thinks war is obsolete because he foresees the disastrous outcome of scientific wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.241.91 (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That's simply your personal opinion, and is not supported by the article on pacifism. The description is now sourced. Yworo (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, You are not a competent Russell scholar. Certify yourself first before you mess with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.241.91 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a requirement on Wikipedia. However, removing cited material may get you blocked. Don't do it again. Yworo (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

External links...

The External Links section of this article is much too large. Please work to parse it down just to the essentials. Thanks, Kingturtle = (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start on this - moved the links on repeated items up to the select bibliography and deleted them. Also reordered chronologically. Is that enough? Chris55 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Former atheist?

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ey94E3sOMA0C&pg=PA537&lpg=PA537&dq=%22we+find+things+which+cannot+plausibly+be+explained+as+the+product+of+blind+natural+forces,+but+are+much+more+reasonably+to+be+regarded+as+evidences+of+a%22&source=bl&ots=EhaeAC4eCM&sig=CdI2iMwTg2asASugOG481QOG5H0&hl=en&ei=WtlETbWmB4v0swOTm9XjCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22we%20find%20things%20which%20cannot%20plausibly%20be%20explained%20as%20the%20product%20of%20blind%20natural%20forces%2C%20but%20are%20much%20more%20reasonably%20to%20be%20regarded%20as%20evidences%20of%20a%22&f=false

I would like another person's opinion before I consider editing his article. --Protostan (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

He's presenting Leibniz's view, not his own JimWae (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell's advocacy of nuclear war

I came to this page looking for more detail on Russell's advocacy of the use of nuclear weapons against the USSR around the period 1945-9 but found it lacking. Shouldn't this be included for a more rounded picture of the philosopher? As I understand it the issue is not particularly contentious.

One source is 'The Wilsonian Century: U.S. Foreign Policy since 1900' by Frank Ninkovich p.150: 'It might have made sense, in that case, to argue on behalf of a preemptive war, to take advantage of the West's nuclear monopoly before the Soviets had fully developed an atomic arsenal of their own. A few hyper-zealous officials and the renowned philosopher Bertrand Russell advocated precisely this move.'

Here's an online article on the topic:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/russell.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.131.101 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

.. and here is he is, in person, telling us, on YouTube [6].